Eleanor Monopoly No More: The Weird Saga of a Zealous Lying Biz That Actually Seized A Youtuber's Car Just Because They Could

Recently, it was revealed that the monopoly on "Eleanor", the 1967 Mustang Fastback, has finally been broken, after the judge pointed out the litigant committed perjury and tried to attribute human qualities to a car so they can claim copyright over something they don't own. However, the story is extremely complicated, 

To get this story right, we have to start from the beginning, of a movie called "Gone in 60 Seconds", released back in 1974 by H.B. Halicki. You can see the "original" hero car, A 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, here, named Eleanor.  

The hero car from Gone in 60 Seconds (1974) 

(and here's the actual vehicle as stored in Petersen Automotive Museum )

The car also appeared in two other H B Halicki movies: The Junkman and Deadline Auto Theft. Though these two movies are made with a lot of footage recycled from the first Gone in 60 Seconds. 

H.B. Halicki died in 1989 while filming a sequel of sorts. His widow, Denise Halicki, was determined to protect EVERYTHING to do with the movie, including the car and its name, "Eleanor", and proceeded to trademark it, and licensed the movie for the 2000 remake starring Nicholas Cage and Angelina Jolie. 

The Eleanor in the 2000 movie was a 1967 Mustang GT500 redesigned by Chip Foose and Steve Sanford. It looks nothing like the vehicle above, as you can see here. The only thing they have in common is they are both Ford Mustangs, that's it. 

1967 Mustang GT500 "Eleanor" as seen in "Gone in 60 Seconds (2000)"

Unfortunately, the fact that this vehicle is NOTHING like the original 1974 Eleanor did not deter Denise Halicki and her "Eleanor Licensing" from harassing ANYBODY who tried to make a car that looks similar to the "new" Eleanor. Remember, this vehicle has nothing to do with Halicki other than it was named Eleanor in an authorized 2000 remake of the 1974 movie. Somehow, Denise Halicki and her company believed this is enough for her to claim the design as their own... 

Technically speaking, Denise Halicki knew the remake will feature a different car, and she didn't trademark THAT car, when she authorized the remake in 1995. The movie finally came out in 2000.  Shelby trademarked the Eleanor Mustang in 2002. THEN Halicki sued in 2004 claiming the trademark belongs to her, and it was awarded to her in 2008 by US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Between then and now, Halicki's Eleanor Licensing and its lawyers claimed that ANY car named Eleanor without their blessing is illegal. The crisis reached a boiling point in 2020 when Youtube Channel "B stands for Build" tried to build a new Eleanor by grafting a 1967 Mustang body onto a modern Mustang platform. The Youtuber was forced to pull his entire 14-video series documenting the build from Youtube, but also had his partially built car SEIZED. 

In fact, Halicki's lawyers went as far as threaten to sue or have sued ANYONE who made a Ford Mustang GT500 that even remotely looked similar to the Chip Foose / Steve Sanford design above, the car she had no rights to even if it's NOT called Eleanor! They were called GT500E, and GT500CR respectively. Then they had the temerity to send letters to the auction houses and owners, warning them to NOT sell those unless they want to be sued as well! (Yes, this was all in the court paper, which will be linked below)

Even Shelby Licensing / Shelby Trust had enough and they sued to have the previous ruling reversed, and in December 2022, they finally prevailed. A judge watched all relevant movies, and ruled that the car CANNOT be a character and thus does not deserve the copyright protection that was granted by previous courts, because, in short, the Halicki lawyers lied to the court. The decision can be read here. 

I won't go into details, you can have Steve Lehto explain that to you. 

But I'll include a juicy quote:

"unfortunate practice on the part of the Halicki Parties 
to embellish facts in their briefing [to the court]."

Ouch, what a smackdown. 

Does that mean people now can build their own versions of Eleanor? Seems to be "yes". 

Will this stop Denise and her lawyers? Unlikely. They *can* appeal. The question is will they? 

How Close Did Trump Get to Overthrow the Government in the US? Closer than you Think.

Trump treated the office of presidency like a CEO's office... thinking that he can simply refuse to go, and if he lost, he will simply refuse to admit he had lot, and find EVERY loophole and exploit every bit of vague language in the books to stay in power, including inciting a riot on January 6 to disrupt the electoral vote certification process for a proper transition of power. And the J6 committee's investigation is only now slowly uncovering the extent on how far he HAD gone. 

* Fact: Trump had pressured Mike Pense, his own VP, to refuse the electoral votes (that says Trump lost and Biden won), even though Constitutionally there is no such power given to the VP. 

* Fact: Trump allies believe in extreme readings of the Electoral Count Act, which defined the process of the presidential election. Trump allies told Trump that the individual state legislatures can send their own electoral college delegates instead of the ones that are bound by the actual state election results. At least seven states have sent a fraudulent list of electors to the National Archive claiming Trump had won, And many of these "fake electors" are Republican candidates for office in the upcoming election in November 2022. 

* Fact: Trump allies in red states believe in redrawing maps to keep Red states red and gerrymandering the locations in order to decrease the voting impact of their enemies, and are trying to prevent independent reviews of their actions by the courts or independent commissions by claiming the extreme reading of the Electoral Count Act. So far, SCOTUS (Supreme Court) has rejected such readings, but at least 3 justices like the idea. 

* Fact: Trump himself called state election commissions, outright ASKING them to FIND additional votes to make him the winner. In a recorded call, Trump called Georgia's top election official to "find" enough votes so he wins that election. Georgia ended up counting the votes THREE TIMES, and certified the win for Biden TWICE. It is unknown if there are OTHER instances of this happening in other states... or whether any other state officials gave in to the pressure. 

* Fact: Trump allies, knowing they need to control the election process, so they can never lose again, are running for the election commission and other positions all over the US, in a bit to "ensure fairness" and look for fraud that was NEVER proven in 2020 election. Many of them STILL hold views that 2020 election was fraudulent, and it is very likely even if they don't see fraud in 2022, they will claim fraud ANYWAY because they can't accept being losers. 

* Fact: Trump KNEW and ENCOURAGED January 6 folks to gather up a knew they are likely to attempt to storm the capital. He may not know the extent, but many of Trump's associates predicted "things might get rea, real bad on Jan 6". including Mark Meadows, as early as Jan 2.  The Oath Keepers took Trump's tweet about making the Jan 6 protest "wild" as a call to action. 

This is an ORGANIZED conspiracy to destroy American democracy, and it is ONGOING. Many of the election deniers are running for office are are planning to continue endorsing Trump or Trump-y     candidates such as Abbott or DeSantis. 

Vote when November 2022 comes. Do NOT let them win. 

"Drive-By" ADA Lawsuits Shake Down Small Business Owners In California

The US of A has laws on the books known as American Disabilities Act (ADA) that mandates public businesses be accessible to people with disabilities. The law is well-intentioned and usually well implemented. However, this did not stop some vexatiously litigious people from abuising the court system and filing frivolous "drive-by" ADA lawsuits against small business owners who can't afford to fight the issue out in court, esp. during pandemic times. 

One such litigant is Potter Handy LLP, who also operates under the title "Center for Disability Access". They supposedly represented clients complained about businesses in both SF Bay Area and Greater LA Metro Area that allegedly violated ADA guidelines. Potter Handy LLP were filing up to 3 lawsuits A DAY in California's Federal District courts right up to April 2022, when they were sued by District Attorneys of both San Francisco and Los Angeles for violating California's Unfair Competition Act. 

While the civil lawsuit by the two district attorneys were dismissed in August 2022, Potter Handy LLP has mostly stopped filing lawsuits as several of the Federal judges handling the filed cases found that many of the presented facts do not add up. The pattern seems clear: there was no demand or notice of violation or request to correct before a lawsuit was filed, and the target is often (thought not always) a mom-and-pop shop (which does not have the resources of a corporate store, nor would they have lawyers on retainer to fight such).  The lawsuit claimed the plaintiff personally encountered "unlawful barriers" often something like "door handles", narrow paths, lack of ramps, inadequate handicapped parking markings, and so on. 

Most cases were settled for between 10K to 20K. 

According to a tally by Bay City News, 3142 cases (or more) in the last four years of ADA lawsuits filed in its own district handled by Potter Handy have been "resolved". And it's known that Potter Handy handled thousands of other cases in other California districts. 

Several Federal Judges have questioned whether the plaintiffs in the Potter Handy ADA cases have been truthful. One judge found that Brian Whittaker, one of Potter Handy's most prolific litigants, "traveled to Redwood City (California) for the purpose of finding business establishments to sue", not because he was visiting the area 2-3 times a month allegedly to relocate from LA. And Whittaker had sued HUNDREDS of businesses in the area. When questioned, he could not name any of the businesses despite suing and settling with hundreds of them. Note that one of the ADA claim requirements is intent to return to the business (and thus, need the barriers removed). 

Another judge, handling some of Whittaker's cases, pointed out that Whittaker took a one-day trip to San Francisco from LA, spend 2 hours moving about "to dine" or "to shop", returned home, and filed 34 lawsuits based on his experience on that one day trip to SF. This judge has also ordered the plaintiff in other Potter Handy cases before him to file additional affidavits, under penalty of perjury, for further details, and accused Potter Handy of filing "boilerplate" complaints. 

Potter Handy insists that it is protecting the rights of the clients it handled and called the civil suit brought by the district attorneys "a political stunt". 

I call it profiting off the misery of others. 

There is No Such Thing as A-10 Blacksnake

If you routinely browse US military Youtube channels, you may be wondering, did US really get a new model of A-10 called Blacksnake? 

Screenshot of Youtube Search Results for "A-10 Blacksnake"

Unfortunately, the answer is no, this is actually just a new paint scheme for one unit: the 122nd Fighter Wing of Indiana Air National Guard, based at Fort Wayne, Indiana. The paint scheme was to celebrate the Indiana Air National Guard's 100th year in operation, with the establishment of 137th Observation Squadron, initially based at Fagley Field in Kokomo, just north of Indianapolis, back in 1921. Yes, this was LAST-year's news. 

Yet the Youtube videos are only few months old. Are they reall this click-bait-y?   

So why "Blacksnake"? According to the ANG unit, blacksnake was a nickname given to Anthony Wayne by the Native Americans he fought. Later, Fort Wayne was named after Anthony Wayne. Supposedly, the local Native Americans gave Wayne the title after he instructed his soldiers to lie in ambush, and only strike at point-blank range, much like the native black snakes, according to a book. 

Which is why you should NEVER trust Youtube videos, unless you can verify the information yourself. I welcome a new A-10, but this ain't it. 

More Flori-DUH: DeSantis Threatens to fine Special Olympics $27.5M If Vaccine Requirements Kept

Apparently, the rights of some unnamed (and uncounted) "antivax Special Olympians" are more important than keeping everyone safe, according to DeSantis. 

SCOOP: The State of Florida threatened the Special Olympics with $27.5 MILLION in fines because the organization had a vaccine requirement at its games in Orlando this weekend.

Late yesterday, the Special Olympics pulled the requirement. 1/3

— Jay O'Brien (@jayobtv) June 3, 2022

DeSantis is a COVID denier in all but name and has persistently tried to downplay death rates. Even his state surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, has no experience managing epidemics or in public health, and is a signer of GBD, calling COVID preparations "COVID mania".  

Combined with his "don't say gay" bill, a kick in the Tampa Bay Ray's shins on their quest for a new stadium just because Ray's expressed support for a bit more gun safety, and other political theater to appeal to conservatives, it's pretty clear he, like Abbott in Texas, is just setting himself up as a Trump successor in two years by abusing the power of his office. 

Flori-DUH Governor DeSantis Proves Again He's More About Politics Than Floridians

According to Ron Filipkowski, quoting OutKick, it seems that DeSantis will veto $35 million for Tampa Bay Rays training facility, because the team spoke out against gun violence in the wake of the two recent mass shootings. 

Desantis will veto the bill to fund the Tampa Rays new Spring Training facility because of their recent statements about gun violence following the Buffalo and Uvalde mass shootings. pic.twitter.com/TcpvMJHN7Y

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) June 2, 2022

You may ask, why do Tampa Bay Rays need a spring training facility? 

Seems the Rays are only LEASING their current spring training facility in Port Charlotte, Florida and their lease runs out in 2028. The idea is to build a complex of multiple practice fields, a stadium, clubhouse, training facilities, catering and cafeteria for both players and visitors, player housing, and parking, so while the primary tenant is away or off-season, the fields can be used by other local teams, both amateur and professional. 

The idea is to retain the Rays in Florida because the Rays need a better home stadium. While they have played at Tropicana Stadium at St. Petersburg, FL, they want a better stadium than the 32-year-old stadium which only has a capacity of 25K fans, and their lease runs out in 2027.  And the construction of both a spring training facility AND a new stadium would keep the Rays in Pasco County, near Tampa. 

DeSantis vetoing this would almost guarantee Rays leaving unless a different deal can be struck between now and then. 

Talk about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, but that's DeSantis for you. He's rather use every opportunity to help his political views than to do the right things for all Floridians.     

Banning Abortion Was NEVER About Protecting the Unborn or the Mother

The latest leak to Politico of how SCOTUS may be thinking was a shocker... They are seriously thinking about ending Roe v Wade. 

Texas, and many southern states have been waging their war on abortion by passing increasingly stricter controls on who can provide such procedures, and the amount of paperwork and time delay the woman must go through to get one. 

Multiple states have previously attempted to either try to give the father a right to veto the abortion or require the father to be notified. Both were struck down by previous SCOTUS, but if RvW was overturned, one can expect such prior decisions to be moot. 

And just to point out the inequities, a father is NOT allowed a "financial abortion", since he never wanted kids, and his partner got pregnant anyway (sometimes, through extraordinary measures, such as stealing a spent condom...). The court ruled that a child's need for support supersedes the father's interests. 

But what they don't realize, or care about, is the law of unintended circumstances. 

What do you think the father would do if the pregnant woman was FORCED by the government and circumstances to carry the child to term, and he cannot opt-out of that responsibility? 

Do you really think he'll just turn into a productive citizen for the sake of the child? 

Some may, but some will seek a different solution. 

This answer will be extremely disturbing, but also terribly obvious. 

The answer is... murder. 

Between 2018 and 2019, HOMICIDE is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH for pregnant women (and newborn mothers) by "more than twofold" over the other leading causes of maternal mortality.

 

Think about that. 

A woman, merely by being pregnant, is MORE likely to die by homicide, compared to the non-pregnant population of the same age and race. 

Think about that. 

Further tightening the ban on abortion will only make this worse. 

We are already in the age of COVID and Qanon. Qanon fodders have killed their wives just because they read somewhere that their wives are contaminated with lizard DNA or some such nonsense. Add stress of COVID to that, THEN add the idea of an UNWANTED family, what do you think would happen? 

In an alleged attempt to save one life, the anti-abortion laws are killing two, three if you count the (don't-wanna-be) father. 

It's not about saving lives. 

It's about control. 

It was always about control.